The Manifesto's "againstness"
From the reading "The Poetics of the Manifesto : Nowness and Newness," I conclude that it is easier to say what the manifesto does, than to define the manifesto. In this reading, I have counted twenty-five adjectives (seventeen on two pages) that are used to describe what the manifesto has become. These adjectives connote the extreme. They indicate that the manifesto is designed to manipulate, to convince and to convert. It can take either an institutional or an individual and independent stance, and it promotes a "we" against "them" attitude toward an issue.
The manifesto places emphasis on appeal, and on the vision of the producer, and his ability/power to persuade. This makes me somewhat uncomfortable with this genre, and so I question :
1. How much credence should one give to the manifesto?
2. Is it usually more self-serving than representative?
3. Is there a tension between principle and the manifesto?
Please let me hear your views.